Attachment_2_-__Evaluation_Criteria_and_Instruction_to_offerors_TURBINE.doc

FA8903-13-R-0115

Attachment 2

ATTACHMENT 2

EVALUATION CRITERIA (IAW FAR Clause 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items) The Government will evaluate all proposals received to determine if they are compliant to the solicitation requirements. A compliant offer is one that meets all the terms, conditions and specifications of the solicitation. The Offeror must provide all documents listed and comply with all proposal instructions in order for their proposal to be considered “compliant” to the solicitation.

All compliant proposals will be evaluated for award. The Government intends to award a best value contract from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, and all other information required by the RFP) and is determined, based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Air Force. Full tradeoff procedures will be utilized. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.

Upon receipt, the Contracting Officer (CO) and Technical Representative(s) will review the proposals, decide to award without discussions/negotiations or hold discussions with the participating contractors determined by the CO to be within the competitive range. After evaluating all proposals, the Contracting Officer may determine that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. The Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. When discussions/negotiations occur, each participating contractor shall be given one or more opportunities to revise its proposal to reflect any changes that may have resulted from the discussions/negotiations. The Contracting Officer will award the contract to the Contractor offering the best value to the Government, based on either the initial or a revised proposal. Unsuccessful Offerors will be notified.

The following Factors, Evaluation Criteria, and Ratings will be used to evaluate proposals submitted in response to this solicitation.

EVALUATION FACTORS:

Overall Relative Order of Importance:

· Factor 1 is substantially more important than Factors 2 and 3 when combined. Factors 2 and 3 are of equal importance. Within Factor 1, all subfactors are of equal importance. All evaluation factors other than price when combined are significantly more important than price; however, price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

FACTOR 1:

Technical Approach [Adjectival Rating]

The objective of this contract is to help offset the costs of electricity and air emissions associated with the power supply for operating nine pump and treat systems by providing service and maintenance of the Fuhrlaender (FL) 1.5 megawatt (MW) wind turbine (Wind I) and biannual (once every two years) blade and transformer inspections at the FL and two GE 1.5 MW wind turbines at the Massachusetts Military Reservation located in Massachusetts.

The Offeror shall present their technical approach/plan for achieving the specific requirement, managing the requirements, and ensuring quality services and deliverables as identified in the PWS.

Factor 1, Subfactor 1 - Similar Work Performed The criteria are met when the Offeror submits and adequately demonstrates a sound, consistent, comprehensive, realistic, effective, and efficient technical approach which contains relevant similar work performed. Offeror shall submit examples (no more than 5) of similar work performed and the outcome of such. Similar work performed will be evaluated based on similarity in size, scope, and complexity to the requirements defined in the PWS.

Note: These same projects shall be utilized for review under the past performance factor. The responsibility to track and ensure the completion/ submission of the Past Performance data rests solely with the Offeror. Past performance should be submitted by the Offeror’s POC client/reference directly to the Government. The Offeror shall ensure that the past performance data is received by the Government by the proposal date.

Factor 1, Subfactor 2 - Quality of Work The criteria are met when the Offeror submits and adequately demonstrates a sound, consistent, comprehensive, realistic, effective, and efficient method for providing/maintaining quality of work on previous contracts. Offeror shall submit examples (no more than 5) that substantiate the claims made for this subfactor. Quality of work will be evaluated based on performance on previous contracts.

Factor 1, Subfactor 3 - Cost Control The criteria are met when the Offeror submits and adequately demonstrates a sound, consistent, comprehensive, realistic, effective way of maintaining cost control on previous contracts. Cost control will be evaluated based on how well your firm controlled costs and avoided cost overruns on prior task orders.

FACTOR 2:

Past Performance [Performance Confidence Assessment Rating] The Government may contact references for the identified projects/contracts at Government’s discretion. The Government may also take into consideration relevant information other than, and independent of, the Offeror’s submission for this factor. The Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources in conducting this assessment.

The criteria are met when the offeror submits up to five contract numbers for recent past or current contracts (including Federal, State, and local government and private). The offeror may include information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror corrective actions. The contract number submitted shall be the same contracts used to demonstrate Factor 1, Subfactor 1.

The contracting officer will refer to FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv), in the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available.

FACTOR 3:

Price

The criteria are met when the Offeror submits an accurate and complete price proposal. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s bottom line price for completeness and reasonableness. A proposal is complete when all price data as outlined in the RFP, in the format provided, has been submitted. A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. The proposed approach shall be achievable, measurable, and demonstrate progress towards achieving the proposed objectives. In order to determine price reasonableness, Offeror’s price proposals may be compared to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), or the Government may compare the Offeror’s price proposal to a validation estimate prepared by the Government based on the Offeror’s technical approach.

EVALUATION RATINGS:

A rating system will be used to depict how well each Offeror meets the evaluation criteria for Factors 1 and 2. Price (Factor 3) will not be rated or scored but will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness.

Adjectival Ratings for Factor 1:

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings for Factor 2:

Price (FACTOR 3) will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness.

Narratives to be used in conjunction with Ratings:

Proposal Format and Submittal Requirements

· All documents shall be submitted in Excel and/or Word format. No PDF files (except for those that are scanned file, such as quotes). Spreadsheets, working documents (such as technical approach) WILL not be accepted in PDF format.

· Any deviation from the request for proposal (RFP) requirements and format may result in non-consideration of the proposal.